Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
RAJENDRA MENON, K.K. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Girdhar Jetha and Others - Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation - Respondent
First Appeal No. 485 of 2004
Decided On : 27-11-2015
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT - LEASE - MANDATORY INJUNCTION - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - REGISTRATION ACT - [SECTION 80, 108, 39, 17, 49] - A suit for mandatory injunction for delivery of possession is maintainable in case of statutory obligation on the lessor to put the lessee in possession of the land leased to him. Renewal of any lease is a fresh grant. The lessor is bound to put the lessee in possession of the property. The lessee is bound to deliver back the possession of the property to the lessor on the determination of the lease. The suit for grant of mandatory injunction was rightly filed by the appellants/plaintiffs and the same was maintainable for grant of possession of the leased land to the appellants/plaintiffs by the respondent Municipal Corporation in performance of the statutory liability prescribed under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 80 of the Municipal Corporation Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit alleging that the appellant No. 2 was the successor of the earlier Coronation Club, of Jabalpur which in fact was extended a lease by the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, in respect of the land bearing diversion Plot No. 107, Sheet No. 85, situated in Marhatal, Jabalpur. The said land was belonging to the Municipal Corporation Jabalpur. The lease was to expire in the year 1956. However, no renewal of the lease was done thereafter. The appellant/plaintiff No. 2-Club remained in possession of the said land and out of the said land leased to the appellants/plaintiffs, a part of the land was encroached by some persons. Thereafter, in the meeting held with the authorities of the Municipal Corporation, it was decided that on payment of certain compounding charges, the lease would be renewed in favour of the plaintiff No. 2-Club and the Corporation Authority would remove the encroachment made by others on the land leased to the appellants and would put the appellants/plaintiffs in possession. Accordingly, on 19.12.1989, the lease was renewed for a period of 60 years, out of which the period of 30 years was treated to regularised the lease, which had expired on 12.2.1956 and from 13.2.1986, the lease of the land was granted for a period of next 30 years.
Finding of the Court:
The suit for grant of mandatory injunction was rightly filed by the appellants/plaintiffs and the same was maintainable for grant of possession of the leased land to the appellants/plaintiffs by the respondent Municipal Corporation in performance of the statutory liability prescribed under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 80 of the Municipal Corporation Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit for grant of mandatory injunction filed under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, seeking delivery of possession was maintainable? 2. Whether there was any statutory duty on the respondent/defendant to put the appellants/plaintiffs in possession of the suit land or not? 3. Whether the lease deed executed in favour of the appellant No. 2 Jabalpur Club on 19.12.1989 was violative of any provisions of the Act? 4. Whether renewal of any lease is in fact a fresh grant? 5. Whether the findings recorded by the trial Court in paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the impugned judgment are perverse and cannot be given a stamp of approval by this Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A suit for mandatory injunction for delivery of possession is maintainable in case of statutory obligation on the lessor to put the lessee in possession of the land leased to him. 2. Renewal of any lease is a fresh grant. 3. The lessor is bound to put the lessee in possession of the property. 4. The lessee is bound to deliver back the possession of the property to the lessor on the determination of the lease.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree in so far as it relates to refusal of grant of decree of mandatory injunction directing respondent/defendant to put the appellant/plaintiff No. 2 in possession of the leased land is set aside. The suit of the appellants/plaintiffs is decreed to that extent.
K.K. TRIVEDI, J.
1. This First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants/plaintiffs takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 24.6.2004, passed in Civil Suit No. 51-A/2004, by the VI Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur, by which the suit for grant of mandatory injunction filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, has been dismissed.
2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit alleging that the appellant No. 2 was the successor of the earlier Coronation Club, of Jabalpur which in fact was extended a lease by the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, in respect of the land bearing diversion Plot No. 107, Sheet No. 85, situated in Marhatal, Jabalpur. The said land was belonging to the Municipal Corporation Jabalpur. The lease was to expire in the year 1956. However, no renewal of the lease was done thereafter. The appellant/plaintiff No. 2-Club remained in possession of the said land and out of the said land leased to the appellants/plaintiffs, a part of the land was encroached by some persons. Thereafter, in the meeting held with the authorities of the Municipal Corporation, it was decided that on payment of certain compounding charges, the lease would be renewed in favour of the plaintiff No. 2-Club and the Corporation Authority would remove the encroachment made by others on the land leased to the appellants and would put the appellants/plaintiffs in possession. Accordingly, on 19.12.1989, the lease was renewed for a period of 60 years, out of which the period of 30 years was treated to regularised the lease, which had expired on 12.2.1956 and from 13.2.1986, the lease of the land was granted for a period of next 30 years. In terms of the settlement between the Corporation and the office bearers of the plaintiff No. 2-Club, since it was decided that a part of the land was to be released in favour of the Municipal Corporation for the purposes of construction and widening of the road, a total area of 70264 sq. ft was leased out to the appellants/plaintiffs.
3. In terms of the lease, out of the total area allotted, 27600 sq. ft land was to be used for commercial purposes and remaining 42664 sq. ft land was to be used for residential purpose. While executing the lease deed, certain conditions were prescribed in the lease deed. The appellants/plaintiffs after execution of the lease deed deposited the amount, but for a considerable long time, no action whatsoever was taken by the Municipal Corporation to remove encroachment from the land and to put the appellants/plaintiffs in possession of the said land. In the year 1999, ultimately, the land was got vacated by the Municipal Corporation by removing the encroachment, but instead of putting the appellants/plaintiffs in possession of the said land, the Corporation started using the land for its own purposes. Threatening the appellants/plaintiffs that since there was breach of the lease condition, a notice was issued to the appellants/plaintiffs of which a reply was submitted, but since there was a threat, the suit was required to be filed, seeking a mandatory injunction against the respondent Corporation to put the appellants/plaintiffs in possession of the land so leased out. The relief to that extent was claimed in the suit.
4. While filing the written statement, the respondent/ defendant contested the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs inter alia on the ground that the leased land was used by the appellants/plaintiffs for the commercial purposes and holding exhibitions by subletting the same to the other individuals without the consent of the respondent/ defendant. In fact, after coming into know about the said fact, action was taken by the Corporation and taking recourse to the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, the encroachers were removed from the said land and possession of the same was taken by the Municipal Corporation. Since the object of granting lease to the appellant was to provide certain curriculum activities and facilities to
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
